Appeal No. 1996-3670 Page 3
Application No. 08/217,063
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under § 112, ¶ 1, as non-enabled
and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, as indefinite. In addition,
claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over U.S. Patent 5,155,847 (“Kirouac”) and claim 7 stands
rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent 5,166,886
(“Molnar”).
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3-7 as indefinite,
claims 1-7 as non-enabled, and claims 1-6 as obvious. We are
also persuaded, however, that he did not err in rejecting claim 2
as indefinite and claim 7 as obvious. Accordingly, we affirm-in-
part. Our opinion addresses the following rejections:
• indefiniteness rejection
• enablement rejection
• obviousness rejection.
I. Indefiniteness Rejection
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or
appellant in toto, we address the six points of contention
therebetween. First, the examiner asserts, "[w]ith respect to
claim 1, it is unclear how the functions of the software means
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007